He told his party room that next year he'd give voters a reason to vote for him - not just vote against the government.

The Labor caucus was restive on boats and Palestine, and the Prime Minister had to cop a position on Palestine's membership in the UN which was not what she wanted.

Question Time was grinding. Ms Bishop ploughed over previously known ground concerning the Prime Minister and the AWU saga.

The Prime Minister played blocking shots and criticised Ms Bishop for pursuing smear and sleaze.

Ms Bishop then tried to walk back a fraction her contention earlier in the day that the Prime Minister was the beneficiary of a fraud - not just the two AWU characters.

Advertisement

And that, as they say, was that.

Thanks as always to Andrew Meares, Alex Ellinghausen and Chris Hammer - and to lovely colleagues who mucked in to keep me more or less bumping along the day's events.

Let's do it all again on the morrow.

I'll sign off with this cheery Hong Kong Disney version of it's a small world after all.

Why you ask? Because Ms Bishop used the phrase earlier today.

And this week, the question is not why, but why not?

Night!

5.39pm: Today we've had getaway cars, bank robbers, a bit of court room drama in the House: now here's a drive-by scene from The Pulse Live Virtual Google-mobile.

This is the Melbourne hotel where Ms Bishop rendezvoused for ten minutes (plus hot beverage) with Ralph "bag-man" Blewitt last Friday. (The chap described by the Prime Minister yesterday as an imbecile, idiot, stooge, sexist pig, liar, crook, and rotten to the core.)

We are told no documents were exchanged.

Sadly none of our protagonists were lurking curb-side when the Google-mobile crawled by.

No Julie Bishop. No bag man. No former radio shock jock. No minister of the Crown. No enterprising, profile-writing News Limited journalist.

(The last two on this list were always not connected to the actual transaction, they were just supplied for a bit of colour and intrigue earlier today. Because there wasn't quite enough dimensions to this tale, right?)

5.25pm: Compare and contrast.

Julie Bishop this morning on the scope of the Prime Minister's conduct in relation to this saga:

I’m the deputy leader of the party and I have very detailed knowledge of the workings of law firms. That is why I am able to say that Julia Gillard set up an unauthorised incorporated association that was in breach of the laws of Western Australia and the reason she didn’t open a file within Slater & Gordon, a file that would have shown a new legal entity was set up was because she, Wilson and Blewitt wanted to hide from the AWU the fact that an unauthorised entity was being set up to siphon funds through it for their benefit, not for the benefit of the AWU.

This afternoon:

Wilson and Blewitt are the members of the association. They are the ones that benefit from the slush fund. They were the signatories to the slush fund.

5.10pm: Pulse readers should be aware there's been a bit of angst around at the ministerial level of late about the Prime Minister being too unilateral when it comes to the Cabinet process. There was a bit of mild eyebrow raising recently when Cabinet was asked to tick off the sweeping royal commission into alleged abuses by Catholic clergy without any papers, and with about five minutes warning. Kevin Rudd of course was accused of treating his ministerial colleagues with rank disrespect - and running a shambolic Cabinet process. So there's some history here that perhaps makes people touchy about such matters.

4.53pm: That was a bit of a train smash really. But should Ms Bishop be feeling overly persecuted right now by the thrusting scribes of the Canberra press gallery - Foreign Minister Bob Carr is soaking up angst right now.

This concerns Palestine. The Prime Minister evidently faced a Cabinet boil-over last night on this very sensitive issue. Senator Carr is on television right now trying to pretend that the Prime Minister hasn't been effectively rissoled by the caucus and the Cabinet after first trying to hold out in favour of her own view: that she's shown inspired and benevolent leadership.

It's rather excruciating.

(The Prime Minister wanted to vote no to giving Palestine observer status in the United Nations. She's copped an absention on this question instead of a no.)

4.30pm: Ms Bishop has called a press conference to wrap up Question Time.

She says the Prime Minister has refused to guarantee that no suspect funds were used in her home renovations. Ms Bishop also says Slater & Gordon has today revealed the Prime Minister's complete lack of professionalism in this matter.

And she argues the Prime Minister has kicked an own goal in Question Time today. Ms Bishop has gone looking for the advertisement for the AWU reform association that Ms Gillard referenced in Question Time. She contends the advertisement is not transparent about the fund's true purpose, which would have been clear to the Prime Minister at the time. She details the affadavits she attempted to table in Question Time. She again repeats the AWU should have been told about the existence of the association to prevent further fraud.

What are your specific allegations, Ms Bishop is asked? What are you suggesting the Prime Minister's motive is?

It was to keep the association hidden from her firm.

Are you saying Ms Gillard is complicit in a fraud?

The Prime Minister is yet to answer questions about her role. The AWU lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This morning you said the Prime Minister profited from the fraud?

No I didn't. No, I did not.

You said she, Wilson and Blewitt?

Wilson and Blewitt are the beneficiaries from the slush fund. I'm not saying she benefited.

Are you saying she's a knowing party to a fraud?

She was a knowing party to breaches of the law in Western Australia.

How can you say the association was secret when it was advertised?

It was a secret to the AWU. The purpose set out in that advertisement was false.

There are calls for your resignation? Meeting Mr Blewitt, was that a good idea?

Ralph Blewitt has met lots of people, I don't think Mr Albanese has called for their resignation. Ms Bishop says she was contacted by former radio host Mike Smith. It was a chance meeting. It doesn't compare to Ms Gillard's four year friendship with Mr Blewitt. I had a ten minute conversation with him at most. He'd met with the police. I wanted to know if there were further documents.

Are you making accusations based on hearsay and rumour?

I'm asking questions. The Prime Minister is entitled to answer them.

Will you ask a bunch of questions on this tomorrow?

I don't announce Opposition decisions before they are made.

You have accused the Prime Minister of being party to a fraud. Yesterday and today.

No, I haven't. Those who stood to benefit were Wilson and Blewitt.

Ms Bishop is saved by the bells, ringing for a division.

3.48pm: Begging for a caption, this one.

Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop.

Go.

3.24pm: Question Time tapas, thanks to Chris Hammer. Here's a flavour of today for you to review while I pop back and post more of Andrew and Alex's photos. (We had some system problems during Question Time, so I didn't get quite as many published as usual.)

I'll try and fix that now!

Turn off your auto-refresh before viewing this video.

3.16pm: Speaker Anna Burke is now ruling on the use of the word mendacious.

This is the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet's favourite description of Tony Abbott. Shadow frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull objected to Mr Combet using it yesterday, on the grounds that he actually meant liar, and liar is unparliamentary language. Mr Turnbull requested that Speaker Burke think this over and provide some guidance to the House.

Speaker Burke has reflected. She now agrees that MPs should not describe one another as mendacious. They can describe things and events as mendacious. But not each other.

3.10pm: The Prime Minister places further questions on the notice paper.

3.06pm: Ms Bishop. Given the Prime Minister knew of the allegation of misuse of funds in Victoria, why didn't the Prime Minister alert the AWU to the existence of the association in Western Australia so that it could be investigated and a further fraud averted?

(Speaker Burke has now warned both Mr Albanese and Mr Pyne: Mr Albanese for making a gratuitous crack at Mr Abbott, Mr Pyne for abusing points of order.)

The Prime Minister:

I did not create a fund, I did not create a bank account, I did not deal with a bank account. I've said that clearly on the public record.

I provided legal advice on the incorporation of an association and I am pointing the parliament to the advertising of that incorporation. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to interject across the table, then why doesn't he have the guts to get up and ask a question?

2.57pm: Ms Bishop finds her question pared back again by Speaker Burke. She is permitted to ask the following: Does the Prime Minister agree, had she alerted the AWU earlier to the existence of the alleged slush fund, that further fraud could have been prevented?

Ms Gillard says she's addressed this issue. And the question proceeds on a false premise. The existence of the association was advertised in accordance with the law.

So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to create some false premise here about what could be known by people about this association. I'd refer her to the fact that it was publicly dealt with, the incorporation, in the newspaper.

More generally, here we have had smear and innuendo from the Opposition, questions that I have dealt with as long ago on the public record as 1995 - and what I say is if the Opposition genuinely thought that there was a serious allegation against me at the heart of this, then why hasn't the Leader of the Opposition asked a question?

2.52pm: Ms Bishop.

I refer to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, and to (a) statement by Slater & Gordon today that states in relation to the AWU matter, a conflict of interest arose between two clients. Slater & Gordon acted for the AWU. The Prime Minister acted for Bruce Wilson personally. When Mr Wilson disclosed the use of the slush fund to purchase the Fitzroy property, Slater & Gordon ceased acting for both clients. Does the Prime Minister still claim that as a partner of Slater & Gordon she did nothing wrong?

The Prime Minister:

I did nothing wrong.

2.43pm: Ms Bishop. When the did the Prime Minister first learn that funds from the (AWU) association were used in the purchase of the Fitzroy property which her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson lived in?

Speaker Burke rules this question out of order.

There are objections.

Speaker Burke says the last two questions go beyond what is acceptable: they are outside the responsibility of the Prime Minister in relation to this issue. I am ruling them out of order.

More objections.

The other Bishop - Bronwyn Bishop - contends the Prime Minister must be prepared to answer questions in the chamber, not just tell the media whatever she feels like.

Speaker Burke sticks by her ruling.

2.38pm: Ms Bishop is back with another affadavit, and another question. As the Prime Minister can't recall receiving $5,000 from Bruce Wilson (this was Ms GIllard's argument yesterday), how can the PM rule out receiving any cash or benefit at any time from these (AWU) accounts?

Speaker Anna Burke has had enough. She rules the question out of order.

2.30pm: Yoo Hoo. Binders full of (perfidious) Gillard!

(If you've missed the preamble to all this, some context. Yesterday on The Pulse Live we posted a picture of Mr Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, with Ms Bishop, holding a folder of briefing material on the AWU matter. The government promptly jumped on the image, claiming it was a dirt file. It's now become part of the government's critique of the Opposition's tactics this week - Mr Abbott has no positive agenda, they are only interested in sleaze and smear, you get the drift. Mr Pyne is trying to turn this back on the government in Question Time today.)

2.19pm: Ms Bishop is back to the home renovations, and who paid for them.

Ms Gillard is not amused, and on the offensive.

I've dealt with these matters publicly and before the dirt team starts cat calling, let's be very clear here - I've dealt with these allegations publicly.

I can guarantee that what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers to was not to my benefit, and did not pay for renovations at my home.

This is smear pure and simple. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in her question before - the allegation there about clothing, was smear, pure and simple.

The Opposition persists. If you paid for your home renovations yourself, why would the builder working on your house go to the AWU offices to ask for payment?

Ms Gillard says the answer to that question can be found in an interview she did with her old law firm, Slater & Gordon, in 1995.

Here is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition without one shred of proof, without one reason to doubt what is in the public record on this matter.

Not one shred of proof, not one thing available to her, which enables her to raise a realistic doubt about what I said in that 1995 transcript. This is truly pathetic.

2.10pm: Mr Pyne.

Allow me to table this Binder full of Gillard, outlining her perfidiousness.

2.08pm: Ms Bishop is back, asking the Prime Minister was she was the beneficiary of any other benefits? Clothes? Stuff?

The Prime Minister:

Dear me, we are down the bottom of the barrel now aren't we? These allegations are untrue, they've always been untrue, they've been known to be untrue for decades and here is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in line with the Leader of the Opposition's strategy, down at the bottom of the mud basket now, desperately picking through, desperately scraping at the bottom of the mud.

Manager of Opposition business Christopher Pyne then seeks to table a file (alleged to be a dirt file by the government) which he says outlines the Prime Minister's perfidiousness.

The House erupts in a collective snarl.

1.55pm: Back briefly to Julie Bishop's sighting of Labor minister Martin Ferguson and News Limited scribe Steve Lewis on the street in Melbourne last Friday. (See the earlier posts at 12.12pm and 12.46pm.)

Steve Lewis tells me he was in Melbourne last Friday, with a photographer, to interview Ralph Blewitt for a profile piece that run in the Sunday tabloids. Mr Lewis hung out with Mr Blewitt for three or four hours, and took him back to Fitzroy to recall those heady days now subject to rolling political contention.

Just for the record, I did not see Julie Bishop, or Martin Ferguson, at any time last Friday.

(Is this getaway car available for passing passengers? I think I might get in it.)

1.39pm: Let's grab a sanity break with some policy issues.

(Kinder, gentler polity.)

Green MP Adam Bandt is teaming up with fellow crossbencher Rob Oakeshott, producing a new private members bill to plug holes in the Gillard Government's mining tax regime. Messers Bandt and Oakeshott don't want the states to punch holes in future Commonwealth revenue collections by jacking up their royalties, (which courtesy of the compromise with the big mining companies) Canberra has to absorb. It is understood that NSW Independent Tony Windsor is also on board.

Now, to the fate of the Gillard Government's Murray Darling Basin Plan? We expect the Greens in the Senate to move for a disallowance of the MDB plan later this afternoon - around 4pm - but like all things, liable to change without notice. This is not expected to succeed, and the disallowance isn't expected to come to a formal vote until tomorrow.

And just because the day wasn't quite mad enough, National MP Michael McCormack also has a motion to disallow the MDB plan in the lower house. We'll try and run that one down later on.

1.20pm: Manager of government business Anthony Albanese has now found the TV cameras. The Prime Minister doesn't have questions to answer. It's the Liberal deputy leader who has questions to answer.

Mr Albanese declares the time has come for Mr Abbott to either stand up behind the arguments being made by Ms Bishop - or show her the door. Does Mr Abbott support Ms Bishop having meetings with Mr Blewitt? Does he support anything she's contending on this AWU matter?

Who instigated the contact?

This is a matter of judgment. There is a pattern of behaviour here with Julie Bishop. To be prepared to engage in a serious accusation against the Prime Minister of the nation without backing it up is a very serious act of lack of judgment. Mr Abbott needs to determine whether he backs in that lack of judgment, whether he supports the judgment in having meetings with Mr Blewitt, who, I note, seems to have travelled to Australia and be reasonably well resourced. There are lots of questions to be answered here, to be answered by Julie Bishop.

12.55pm: My colleague Richard Willingham is just back from the Labor caucus briefing.

The Immigration Minister Chris Bowen faced six questions from MPs on a range of asylum policy issues, including rights to work, health of detainees, and accommodation on Nauru. Left-wing Labor backbencher Melissa Parke inquired whether asylum seekers could be deployed to work in regions where there were labour shortages.

The Prime Minister gave her report. She spoke of the government's recent five year anniversary, listing the achievements of the Rudd and Gillard administrations. Ms Gillard said Labor had an unfinished agenda. The government would press on with its key social policy reforms, like the disability insurance scheme - in contrast to the Opposition, exposed yesterday with a dirt file. One thing you won't see from this Opposition is a file named new policies, the Prime Minister said. She said Opposition MPs were frustrated that they are not in government.

Labor backbencher John Murphy - who is often upset with coverage from the News Limited tabloids - was again upset about today's coverage of the AWU/Bruce Wilson saga. He pointed to a vox pop question in today's Daily Telegraph asking whether folks would remember $5,000 turning up in their bank accounts seventeen years ago. One respondent, Sarah Bradley, was sure she'd remember, because it was so much money. Mr Murphy opined that Ms Bradley was aged 18 - which would mean her recollection dated from around the time of her first birthday.

Caucus resolved to write a letter to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam noting the anniversary of his election to parliament sixty years ago. It was moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by Labor elder John Faulkner.

Palestine, as we've flagged, was discussed and resolved (see post at 11.28am.)

12.46pm: Just off the phone from the Resources Minister Martin Ferguson. Coincidence. Not curiouser. (See the post from 12.12pm).

Mr Ferguson confirms he was in Little Bourke Street in Melbourne last Friday - the same street as Ms Bishop. He was enjoying a lunch with his staff after a productive energy reform meeting.

Mr Ferguson says he was not meeting Mr Blewitt.

Not last Friday. Not ever as far as he can recall.

I didn't meet Ralph Blewitt last Friday, nor to the best of my recollection, have I ever met him.

(Very hard to keep up with who is in this getaway car now.)

12.29pm: Quick chamber check for those poor Pulsers heartily sick of the AWU and all its works.

The Coalition will later on move amendments to one of the key measures from the recent Mid Year Economic Forecasts - a move by the Australian Taxation Office to hoover up lost super accounts. This measure was worth $550 million to the bottom line in the first year.

If the amendments fail, the Opposition will vote against this proposal in the House. There will also be Senate amendments. Sounds like Treasurer Wayne Swan is going to need those cross benchers. The government seems confident enough it will get there in the end.

Ms Bishop was stopped again by reporters outside a foreign aid event a moment ago. It's a small world, she remarked, casually, to journalists seeking more particulars.

In the very same street she'd seen Mr Blewitt, there was Labor man Martin Ferguson and News Limited man Steve Lewis. Hanging around.

Coincidence? Or curiouser and curiouser.

The thick plottens.

11.54am: A spokesman for Treasurer Wayne Swan requests a point of order on the million jobs pledge.

It’s absolutely laughable hearing Tony Abbott pledge job growth when his shadow treasurer has announced a $70 billion budget crater and the only jobs strategy he has articulated has been the slashing of jobs by Campbell Newman and Barry O’Farrell. In contrast to Mr Abbott’s aggressive negativity, the government’s jobs record speaks for itself – more than 800,000 jobs have been created in Australia since Labor came to Government, compared with millions of jobs lost around the world.

The difference couldn’t be starker – on one hand is Tony Abbott’s airy-fairy pledge with zero policy detail presenting a huge risk to the economy and jobs, on the other are the Government’s runs on the board in creating jobs in the most turbulent global times since the Great Depression.

11.44am: The Abbott pivot, live and unedited.

This is the last joint party meeting of the year and as the parliamentary year closes it’s important to recommit ourselves to our great purpose which is to build a better life for the Australian people; to build a better life for the forgotten families of this country. In the end our contribution to building a better life for the people of Australia will rest on the good and sensible policies that we take to the next election. But good policies don’t emerge from nowhere in an election campaign. Good policies rest on three years of hard work and that’s what we’ve been doing over the last two years.

We’ve been doing the hard work needed to build the strong and positive plans that we will be taking to the next election. We’ve been telling the Australian people about the values that we hold dear, our commitment to lower taxes, smaller government and greater freedom. Our commitment to the family and to the values and the institutions that have stood the test of time. Our commitment to this nation and our desire to see and place practical policies that we know will make our country as strong as it possibly can be. So, we start with values, we move to commitments and then we build the positive plans that we will take to the Australian people at the next election.

Our positive plan is to deliver a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. We will have lower cost of living pressures. We will have lower taxes, and we will have reduced debt under the Coalition. We will have a modernised economy and we will have stronger borders. We want to ensure that this country of ours is the best place in the world to live, the best place in the world to bring up a family and the best place in the world to build a secure future. This is our positive, inclusive vision for our country. This is the hope, reward and opportunity that we are determined to build for the Australian people.

Now, I want to say to you that we have already put strong commitments in place. We have already told the Australian people what we intend to do to deliver them the strong and prosperous economy that is necessary for a safe and secure Australia. There will be lower taxes. There will be more responsible and therefore lower spending. There will be higher productivity and there will be closer engagement with Asia.

These are the commitments that are already there clearly on the record. These are the things that we stand for. These are the things that the people of Australia can trust us to deliver to them and that will give them the better future that they have a right to hope for. Economic reform begins with getting rid of unnecessary taxes. We will get rid of the carbon tax because you do not help the environment by damaging the economy. We will get rid of the mining tax because you do not improve our economy by penalising its most successful sector. We understand that no country has ever taxed its way into prosperity. We will boost productivity by taking $1 billion a year of red tape costs off business, particularly off small business. We will boost participation by amongst other things, trying to ensure that Australia at last has a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme so that the mothers of our country, the women of Australia, can be full economic contributors, if that’s their choice, as well as social and family contributors. And my friends, we will secure our borders. We will stop the boats by putting in place the policies that we know can work in the future because they have worked in the past.

If we can do what we have pledged to the Australian people that we will strive to deliver – and I am so confident that we can – we will deliver a million new jobs over five years, two million new jobs over a decade. We will give the people of Australia the additional jobs that they need to be confident that there will be a strong and prosperous future for them and their children. We will have a strong and diverse five pillar economy with manufacturing, with agriculture, with education, with services as well as with mining and resources because we will put in place the policies that will enable the creativity of the Australian people to flourish.

So, my friends, we can do it. We will do it. The Australian people deserve a better future and only the Coalition can deliver it to them. Over the coming year, we will deliver the detailed policies that will put in place the commitments that we have already offered to the Australian people. The detailed policies will start early in the new year because I want the Australian people, not just to vote against the current government, I want them to positively vote for this Coalition. I want the Australian people to vote for us, not simply to vote against someone else. We can do it. We can build a better country.

We have a brighter future ahead of us and I am confident that 2013 is going to be a very good year for this Coalition and an even better year for this great country of ours, Australia.

11.28am: A breaking story now from my colleague Dan Flitton (concerning that internal Labor unease about the Middle East we flagged in the post at 9.57am.)

Here's Dan:

Julia Gillard has compromised on her opposition to Palestinian membership in the United Nations – deciding Australia will abstain when the contentious vote is put in the General Assembly.

Ms Gillard told Labor caucus this morning she did not believe the resolution proposing Palestine be given a similar standing in the UN to the Vatican would advance peace talks with Israel. But after strong lobbying by both Left and Right factions, Ms Gillard said Australia would not oppose the bid.

Former foreign minister Gareth Evans has also been heavily involved, briefing MPs on the issue and warning Australia would stand on the ''wrong side of history'' by opposing the bid. A planned motion by Labor backbencher Andrew Leigh calling for Australia to back Palestinian membership has now been withdrawn.

Israel has steadfastly opposed the Palestinian manoeuvre, warning it breaches promises not to make a unilateral declaration of statehood. Ms Gillard had last year directed Australia to vote against Palestinian membership of the UN cultural body, UNESCO.

But the decision to abstain will mark a break with the US, expected to side with Israel. A majority of countries are expected to back the resolution.

(Foreign Minister Bob Carr around the House this morning, snapped by Andrew Meares.)

11.12am: Just listening to the replay of Mr Abbott's pep talk to the colleagues.

I want people to vote for us, not vote against someone else.

Yes to that.

Sing. It's the last week. We can.

11.04am: My Age colleague Michael Gordon has a good story this morning, bouncing off Mr Aristotle's criticism, signalling that Immigration Minister Chris Bowen may walk back this punitive no work rights measure a bit.

New rules denying asylum seekers work rights for up to five years will be softened in response to a backlash from Labor MPs and one of the principal architects of the Gillard government's policy to stem the number of boat arrivals.

10.53am: As our parliamentarians thrash things out downstairs, I'll point you to an interesting column this morning from Paris Aristotle, refugee advocate and a member of the Gillard Government's expert panel on asylum seekers.

Mr Aristotle points out that recent policy decisions by the Gillard Government to prevent boat arrivals working were not, underline not, the expert panel's idea.

Mr Aristotle:

The announcements last week to disallow asylum seekers work rights and timely access to family reunion, even after they have been found to be a refugee, were not recommendations of the panel. The minister on Monday clarified that these measures were not associated with the panel recommendations. I welcome his commitment to work further on this with community groups and his advisory committee in the coming months.

The measures are highly problematic because they are a punitive form of deterrence in response to a specific and new phenomenon in people smuggling from Sri Lanka that the government believes is for economic reasons as opposed refugee protection. This is best established by properly and quickly processing their claims. Those that are refugees should be protected and those who are not can be returned. The coalition's proposal to slash the humanitarian quota back to 13,750 places and reintroduce temporary protection visas also makes little sense. These measures offer little in terms of a longer-term regional response.

10.15am: Mr Abbott invited photographers down to the opening of his final joint party room meeting for 2012.

The Opposition leader's New Year's resolution? More light than shade.

Mr Abbott has thus far left the heavy lifting on the AWU-Bruce Wilson saga to his deputy. He's signalled this morning that next year, the election year, will be about the Coalition's positive policy agenda.

Voters will not just vote against this Gillard Labor Government, but vote for Tony Abbott and his vision thing.

A more uplifting 2013? Dare to dream Pulsers.

10.06am: Getaway cars are being matched with scumbags.

Manager of Government Business Anthony Albanese is unhappy that Ms Bishop has met Ralph Blewitt - the colourful Australian Workers Union man who several newspapers now routinely describe as a "self-confessed bagman."

(Hello, my name is Ralph. I'm a bag man.)

Ms Bishop has told reporters this morning she met with Mr Blewitt for ten minutes in Melbourne to see if he was in possession of any documents that might assist her forensic parliamentary prosecution of the Prime Minister.

Mr Albanese is grabbing the umbrage and running with it all the way to the little Sky television studio. Quoth he: Ms Bishop is meeting with a scumbag to try and bring down a Prime Minister. He's made comparisons to the infamous Godwin Grech affair - when the then Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull cultivated public service whistleblower Godwin Grech.

Mr Grech, it turned out, falsified some of his material, leaving Mr Turnbull in rather a tight spot.

9.57am: It being Tuesday of a parliamentary sitting week, both the Labor caucus and the Coalition party-room are meeting downstairs.

Advance publicity suggests both leaders will get some questions from their colleagues this morning.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we have a full tank of gas, half a packet of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses... HIT IT!

Come on Pulsers.

I'm sure you can get into this. Shake a tail feather.

9.30am: Before we explore the Prime Minister as getaway car, some from-the-gallery perspectives on Ms Gillard's performance yesterday.

Dennis Atkins, The Courier Mail:

There is a logic to Gillard's side of the story which, after repeated attempts to breath life into an investigation in search of a crime, holds more water than the shape-shifting series of claims and long bow connections thrown at her. Non-sequiturs and post hoc reasoning - often held together with errors of fact repeated often enough to become part of the accepted narrative - do not make a case of either substance or consequence for Gillard to answer. Something that began as a charge Gillard benefited from slush fund money for renovations to a house transformed into an incorrect claim the Prime Minister set up the fund and myriad allegations about the purchase of a house in Fitzroy. It now turns on the application of AWU rules and the fine print of the incorporation of the association Gillard advised on. Such a scatter-gun approach to cornering the Prime Minister does achieve a political aim. It distracts Gillard and the government from any positive message they might want to prosecute and forces prime ministerial denials to all sorts of claims. The AWU/Slater and Gordon story ran hard last week - as did some embarrassing backtracking on asylum seeker policy - but the public appears unimpressed. Three polls yesterday - Newspoll, Essential and The Courier-Mail/Galaxy survey - showed Labor holding or improving its vote. The voters look like they've moved on.

Hedley Thomas, The Australian:

You can't report things you don't know," the Prime Minister said yesterday, explaining why she never raised a red flag on the AWU Workplace Reform Association in the mid-1990s. But there was plenty she did know at the time.

Mark Baker, The Age:

The Prime Minister might have devoutly wished her marathon media conference and intensive parliamentary grilling would be the last word on the AWU slush fund scandal, but her responses on two key issues have ensured her wish will not be granted. Ms Gillard's confirmation that she was representing infamous union cronies Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt - and not the union they supposedly represented - when she advised on the setting up of the now notorious AWU Workplace Reform Association raises a rash of fresh questions about the wisdom and appropriateness of her role. And in refusing to deny that she wrote to WA authorities in mid-1992 vouching for the bona fides of the slush fund, Ms Gillard remains exposed to further accusations that her role was more substantial than admitted.

Lenore Taylor, The Sydney Morning Herald:

There is now something like a formulated charge in the long-running saga of the Prime Minister and the alleged thief who was her lover. But making a charge is not the same as proving it. Nor convincing people to care.

9.15am: Good morning Pulsers, and welcome.

Anyone who thinks the Prime Minister's press conference yesterday was the end of this AWU-Bruce Wilson saga can think again.

Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop is up and firing. Ms Bishop is asserting Ms Gillard has been involved in a breach of the law. She (being the Prime Minister) created the stolen vehicle that the bank robbers drove to the bank.

This is a bit like being trapped in Reservoir Dogs. All we need to make today complete is the Tarantino treatment and a rocking soundtrack.

Julie to the left of me, Tony to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Bam bam bam bam.

233 comments

There's plenty of issues floating around in this last sitting week but the Coalition should ask Swannie how his surplus is going, especially if there's going to be Gonski and NDIS announcements coming up.

Are we going further into debt Swannie and will you be asking for another raising of the debt ceiling ?

Commenter

Hacka

Location

Canberra

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 8:28AM

The LNP doesn't care about the economy. They only care about what Julia Gillard may, or may not, have done in 1995.

Commenter

Jace

Location

Sydney

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:04AM

Perhaps next time Julia trots out for her 'I've done nothing wrong' routine, Swanee canfollow with his 'I've done the surplus in', they could make it a regular duet.

Commenter

SteveH.

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:07AM

don't be silly hacka ... as if the LNP would want to talk about policy when they could be going for the 100th failed SOSO or a bit more baseless muckracking ... much more fun that way for Tony and his team ....

Commenter

juileep

Location

sydney

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:07AM

Sssssshhhh .... whatever you do, don't mention the surplus. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it ...

Commenter

Hasbeen

Location

Umina

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:10AM

'plenty of issues floating around in this last sitting week'? Perhaps you should share your floating ideas including concerns regarding the surplus with a federal opposition bereft of anything other than the AWU affair.

What this whole sorry saga has proven, that in 2012 Gillard is a far more accomplished politician than her counter part who cant open his mouth without putting his foot in it. Think 'authentic aborigines'. More over Gillard has proven that she is strong, intelligent and can manage the rough and tumble of the worst kind of politics whilst getting tough policies through a hung parliament. Has my vote regardless.

Commenter

Leslie

Location

Western Sydney

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:33AM

One thing that is for certain Labour love wasting money - surely Australians will not allow Swanie a third term of skyrocketing debt??

Commenter

Frustrated

Location

Chiswick

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:37AM

Are we still pretending that there will be a surplus?

Commenter

Seriously...

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:46AM

"hacka"and his Abbotter mates never cease to surprise.

Appears they are now taking a sabbatical from the Law Degree that they appear to be getting from Blewitt (Thailand Ralph) and are now taking lessons on bonds and Tweeting from Robb (the drinks waiter).

If only they would try the Australian education system it might give them better qualifications to "Comment".

Commenter

J. Fraser

Location

Queensland

Date and time

November 27, 2012, 9:54AM

@Hacka - These are legitimate questions. But Abbott and Bishop et al have mud to throw and sleaze to pedal.

No time for the important questions. How will the LNP fill it's $70 Billion Black Hole? Will they support the NDIS and Gonski? How will they wind back the Price on Carbon and all the tax reforms and pension increases? What services will be cut? What changes will be made to the NBN? What will this mean for regional Australia?

There is also the important issue of refugees. Now that the Liberal policy of Off-Shore processing is a proven failure will they force the government to accept a more balanced approach or will they continue the racist dog whistling?

There are lots of questions for them - but they don’t seem to care about the Australian economy and people. They are interested in spin, sleaze and mud from 20 years ago.

Subscribe to ITPro

Follow Us

Editor's Choice

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has bolstered Malcolm Turnbull's ministerial duties, handing him greater responsibility for e-government in a push to expand the use of a single digital identity for Australians.

Data

The new roof that spans Margaret Court arena does more than keep out the weather. Built into the gantries that surround the sliding ceiling are Wi-Fi antennas that beam web access to every ticket holder.